To better understand Dayton and the Legislature's basic budget disagreements, here's a look at how much the state spent in the previous two years (fiscal years 2010 and 2011) that ended June 30 and how much the governor and lawmakers are proposing to spend in the current biennium (FY 2012-13). The figures represent spending from the state's general fund, the budget category that covers most day-to-day expenditures:

The numbers show a nearly $1.4 billion gap between how much money lawmakers and Dayton want to spend. State finance officials forecast that the state, under current law, would collect about $34.4 billion in general fund revenue over the next two years. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate have approved spending that much and no more. The governor has called for spending an additional $1.4 billion, funded with a tax increase, to prevent what he considers unacceptable cuts in essential services.

This boils down to one party who wants to spend the money the state has coming in, which represents a 6% increase from the last budget, and the other party (the democrat governor) who wants to spend $1.8 billion more than that and raise taxes to do it.

And what’s worse, he still hasn’t said why he needs that extra money or what he would spend it on. He’s nuts. But we all know that.

4
posted on 07/10/2011 6:07:57 PM PDT
by MNnice
(Showing fresh signs of liberalitis, the strain of the orbital muscles due to excessive eye rolling)

Here’s what I would like to see the Republicans do. Submit a budget with more spending cuts than ever. Call the press and announce that this is the “emergency, get everyone back to work budget to end the shutdown.” Paint it as doing all you can to get it to pass, and you hope, HOPE the guv will sign it. Make it look like you are trying as hard as you can to end the shutdown and it is all up to Gov. Dayton, now, he has the budget and the ball is in his court. If he vetos it, repeat with even more severe budget cuts.

All taxes aren’t created equal. Some are progressive in nature while others are regressive.

A system has been created to measure taxes on this continuum. The “Suits Index” is a system that tells us which taxes are progressive and which are regressive and how much so.

Check out the taxes that are most regressive:

· Tobacco taxes;

· Minnesota’s “sick tax” to fund state health care;

· Utility taxes;

· Gasoline taxes;

· Estate taxes;

· Gambling taxes;

· General sales taxes;

· Corporate taxes (which in some fashion are passed to consumers).

Think about it. DFLers have participated in raising just about every one of these taxes in the recent past. And then they turn around and cry foul over a system that has become more regressive.

Now there are two way to fix this “problem,” if that’s what you think should be done from a public policy perspective.

You could adopt the DFL plan, which is to raise progressive taxes, meaning the income tax, and therefore bring more money into government.

The alternative is to cut regressive taxes, which is what House Speaker Kurt Zellers suggested in response to the media breathlessly demanding his reaction to the newsthat job creators and other successful people aren’t ponying up their “fair share.”

Are the wealthy paying up when it comes to taxes?

Take the income tax, for example.

When broken down by decile, you can see that the successful pay the majority of the income tax. And the less motivated amongst us?

The bottom 10% don’t pay ANY income taxes. In fact, they get back from the state over $17 million through refundable credits and other goodies.

The next 10% pay NO income taxes and receive $23 million in refunds.

The next 10% pay in, net, a little over $4 million, which is less than 1% of the total income tax collected.

The next 10% pay, net, about $80 million, about 1.1% of the total.

The next 10% pay, net, about $207 million, about 3% of the total.

The next 10% pay , net, about $357 million, about 5% of the total.

The next 10%, net, pay about $526 million, about 7.5% of the total.

The next 10%, net, pay about $788 million, about 11% of the total.

The next 10% pay, net, about $1.2 BILLION, about 17% of the total.

The next 10% pay, net, about $4 BILLION, about 56% of the total.

Put another way, the top 20% (those with household incomes above $90,000 per year) pay nearly three-quarters of the income tax while the bottom 20% pay nothing and even get something back.

Put another way, the top 5% of households (households income above $183,000) pay about 43% of the income tax.

Put yet another way, the top 1% (household incomes above $430,000 per year) payabout 25% of the income tax.

That is what the media won’t be telling you about Minnesota’s tax burden.

Are the successful paying their fair share? They most certainly are and then some.

If the DFL wants a more progressive system, maybe they ought to rethink all the regressive taxes they’ve embraced to satisfy other elements of their constituency.

“Regressive” taxes are good. They make the parasites contribute something. Even lower income people who contribute something to society ginerally receive far more in benefits, directly and indirectly, than they pay.

8
posted on 07/10/2011 7:13:47 PM PDT
by achilles2000
("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")

This is what the people of Minnesota voted for. They're like the people of California in wanting their cake and eating it too. They elected Democratic nominee Dayton as their Governor knowing that he wanted to raise their taxes rather than reduce state spending, at the same time they elected a Republican legislative majority knowing of the GOP promise to cut spending rather than raise taxes.

Deadlock between Minnesota's "I promise to keep spending even if it means raising taxes" Governor, and it's "We promise to cut spending rather than raise taxes" GOP legislative majority is the obvious and natural result of the people of Minnesota voting for two impossible things at the same time.

They deserve this.

Freepers shouldn't come unglued at politicians keeping the promises they make during elections. That is a good thing.

Maybe the people of Minnesota will wise up and maybe they won't, but they got want they voted for. I live in California and the voters here are a lot worse. Most Californians firmly believe they can vote themselves into paradise without paying for it. This has been proven in election after election here.

If the people of Minnesota really don't like this, they can change it in the next election. That's what America is all about.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.